Natera
TINA.org joined leading Lanham Act scholars in filing an amici brief in a case regarding the false marketing of an organ transplant rejection detection product supporting a competitor’s petition for review to the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve whether courts can infer harm and deception from a finding of intentional false advertising.
Timeline
2026
February 24
TINA.org joins leading Lanham Act scholars in filing an amici brief supporting competitor CareDx’s Supreme Court cert petition.
February 23
The Supreme Court requests Natera to respond to CareDx’s cert petition.
February 9
CareDx files a petition for certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Third Circuit decision that erased a nearly $45 million jury award against competitor Natera.
2025
August 28
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the district court’s decision, acknowledging evidence of literal falsity and willful conduct but holding that the record lacked proof of “actual deception.”
2023
July 17
Following the jury verdict, the district court grants Natera’s post-trial motion as to damages, setting aside the nearly $45 million award, concluding that CareDx had not shown that consumers were actually deceived.
2022
March 14
A jury finds that Natera engaged in false advertising and had done so intentionally and willfully, and awards $21.2 million in actual damages and $23.7 million in punitive damages.
2019
CareDx sues Natera in Delaware District Court under the Lanham Act and Delaware state laws alleging that Natera falsely markets its kidney transplant rejection detection product Prospera as superior to CareDx’s product AlluSure without adequate supporting data.
The Latest
There Should Be a Price to Pay for Knowingly Lying to Consumers
Why TINA.org wants the Supreme Court to address proof of harm in Lanham Act cases.